Study proves liberals have poor self control; weak minds

So basically what I said. Anyhow. Moving on.

Already covered above, "by God" isn't a fact, it's a belief some people choose to believe in. Unless you have a way of proving the existence of god? Those morals come from the written text and spoken word of another human being (Moses, in the case of the Jews). Why am I explaining this to you about your own religion?

The distinction seems to be more between moral relativists and moral absolutists, rather than religious people, though obviously many religious people are moral absolutists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The distinction seems to be more between moral relativists and moral absolutists, rather than religious people, though obviously many religious people are moral absolutists.

Many people are, I have to agree with that. Their argument is "either you believe in God, or you believe in human law, there is no middle ground." I don't really agree with that theory. That would leave no room for agnosticism.

If you are the one saying God is real then the burden would be on you to prove it wouldn't it? You might say you can't prove it because it relies on faith, which is fine, but then if you are going to talk about actually proving God doesn't exist..you have to admit you can't prove he does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The distinction seems to be more between moral relativists and moral absolutists, rather than religious people, though obviously many religious people are moral absolutists.

🙄

If you are the one saying God is real then the burden would be on you to prove it wouldn't it? You might say you can't prove it because it relies on faith, which is fine, but then if you are going to talk about actually proving God doesn't exist..you have to admit you can't prove he does.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is incorrect. I am not saying God is real. I am saying God is real to those who follow his doctrine, so the burden of proof isn't on them unless they're trying to convert or going on a Crusade.

I understand now, and you just showed why religion can be so dangerous. There are people who read the bible and go "seems like a thing I'd enjoy worshiping".

I could understand worshiping out of fear, but some say they truly "love" God. Of course not all Catholics believe in the bible, but..it's not a super small percentage either.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Right, so you've been proven wrong and you're closing your ears and screaming "I can't hear you." We get it. Good show 👆

Yet another point that's obviously over your head. People who follow "god" don't need to prove to you or other people that "god" wrote their doctrines. They believe God exists and so they're following the doctrine of a higher being. If you want to dispute this, then you need to prove that God doesn't exist or the concept is a lie. Since you can't, we're moving on. It doesn't have to be an indisputable fact for the distinction to be valid, no matter how hard you try.

I see you're attempting to troll me and draw me in. Sorry, I already moved on there.

When you take the stance that your morals are superior because they come from a "God" opposes to another's coming from not a god, you kind of do. But it seems you're just doing the "my morals are better than atheists morals because I say so" thing and there's no argument there, it's simply what you choose to have faith in.

see you're attempting to troll me and draw me in. Sorry, I already moved on there.

When you take the stance that your morals are superior because they come from a "God" opposes to another's coming from not a god, you kind of do. But it seems you're just doing the "my morals are better than atheists morals because I say so" thing and there's no argument there, it's simply what you choose to have faith in.

I understand now, and you just showed why religion can be so dangerous. There are people who read the bible and go "seems like a thing I'd enjoy worshiping".

I could understand worshiping out of fear, but some say they truly "love" God. Of course not all Catholics believe in the bible, but..it's not a super small percentage either.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Many people are, I have to agree with that. Their argument is "either you believe in God, or you believe in human law, there is no middle ground." I don't really agree with that theory. That would leave no room for agnosticism.

Hmm, yes, I agree, that would really just view it from their POV (similarly to what Rob earlier said about all God's law actually being human made, being on the opposite end of the spectrum). I think it's really just a question of categories though. There'll be religious people that believe that morals are relative (for example because they believe their deity wants it to be that way), and there will be atheist people that believe in an absolute moral code, be it due to some sort of spirituality or scientific laws or some other justification.

Agnostics can obviously fall on either of those as well.

Here is my main problem with saying they should only need to prove God if they are actively trying to convert people or going on a Crusade. For me though, I think that line of thought would be fine...if they kept to themselves. But they do not. People allow their belief in this "God" to actually influence policy in this country. God is mentioned on our friggin currency, and the Catholic church specifically has far too much power for them to skate by on a "well if they aren't trying to convert" technicality.

I don't know if I'd call it conversion, but what exactly was the goal in putting "In God We Trust" on our cash? To remind us God is better then money? Seems almost like an advertisement for God, and these are the people you feel should not have to prove stuff? This also is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to its influence just on this country.

if they kept to themselves. But they do not. People allow their belief in this "God" to actually influence policy in this country. God is mentioned on our friggin currency, and the Catholic church specifically has far too much power for them to skate by on a "well if they aren't trying to convert" technicality.

I don't know if I'd call it conversion, but what exactly was the goal in putting "In God We Trust" on our cash? To remind us God is better then money? Seems almost like an advertisement for God, and these are the people you feel should not have to prove stuff?

Originally posted by psmith81992
No, as usual you can't read and end up being embarrassed. Since you lost, I accept your concession.

That's incorrect only in the fact that if I do believe in God and I do not follow his doctrine to the T (although every day it's an improvement which is sufficient), I acknowledge my shortcomings. Moral relativists manipulate whatever they want in order to justify their choices. Big difference. And yes, because I believe that my doctrines come from a higher being, I do think they are by definition, superior to human doctrine.

"Concession accepted" both a clever and original troll line. Kudos.

While I'm glad you acknowledge your shortcomings, I see no point here, we're discussing your own personal faith.

"Concession accepted" both a clever and original troll line. Kudos.

While I'm glad you acknowledge your shortcomings, I see no point here, we're discussing your own personal faith.

Watch out saying concession accepted, people get stern talking too from night management here.😂 They almost out of a job.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I have no problem with how the founding fathers drafted religion into our society, as the population back then was predominantly religious. As pertains to your first part, you only have to prove God exists if you're attempting to convert, or claim your beliefs are right, etc.

But you can't say the Catholic church has never attempted to convert anyone. So what proof do they use to show these people God is real?

Also like I said, we aren't talking about the founding fathers, this stuff is still happening today. I can find BS written about "God" on freshly printed currency.

You also ignored the huge amount of power these people have, and when you have that much power you are *always* trying to convert people to your cause.

Times change, the hard on for religion isn't as stiff as it once was in this country. So why haven't they changed things? Could it be the church..has too much power?

But you can't say the Catholic church has never attempted to convert anyone. So what proof do they use to show these people God is real?

You also ignored the huge amount of power these people have, and when you have that much power you are *always* trying to convert people to your cause.

Don't make trolling posts like 'concession accepted'. That sort of immaturity does not belong here.

In general, though we need to bring this back to topic- assuming such a poor topic has grounds for any further discussion.

😂

Right on the money

Posting off-topic when I just called for a return to topic is not welcome either, TI.